You would be referring to surplus cash that could be invested. That wouldn't be profit since profit is taxed, and reinvested cash isn't.
There are IRS limitations on this.
So how much profit is acceptable for products that are crucial to saving lives or maintaining health?
Like the deaths of those who can't afford medicine?
Another view is that they die because
government won't buy & provide the drugs.
It's easier to take someone else's property
using the law than it is to pay for it.
It's like the military draft....don't have to
pay conscripts as much as volunteers.
Is it immoral tat insulin prices were regulated just so those on limited incomes can more easily afford it, and not risk health, and even death, just so a company can claim more profit?
I can't speak to insulin prices.
But I can say that where there is a need,
government can satisfy it without stealing
from anyone.
Even if insurance companies will pay whatever is demanded from drug companies, how is it not a cash cow that drug companies take advantage of?
Insurance companies negotiate with drug companies.
I've received detailed statements about what they're
charged, what they pay, & what I pay.
The insurance company doesn't want their customer to die, they want their profits.
Do you suggest this is wrong?
For example, Virronx is a company that provides home
services designed to improve health outcomes, reduce
health care costs, & make a profit. Government wasn't
doing this. They left it up to private companies.
The drug companies want their profits, so where is the balance?
That's not a question I can answer.
I say this because I can't tell if your
question is rhetorical or not.
Two patients that need the same drug to stay alive sees one who is wealthy and has no problem paying the bill, and the other facing bankruptcy. Would you oppose a pricing system that is adjusted to income?
Government should be assisting people via
broadly based taxation....not by taking assets
from individual companies.